[PATCH] notifier: Make atomic_notifiers use raw_spinlock

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Date: Fri Aug 06 2021 - 10:07:28 EST


From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:19:04 +0000

Booting a recent PREEMPT_RT kernel (v5.10-rc3-rt7-rebase) on my arm64 Juno
leads to the idle task blocking on an RT sleeping spinlock down some
notifier path:

| BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/5/0/0x00000002

| atomic_notifier_call_chain_robust (kernel/notifier.c:71 kernel/notifier.c:118 kernel/notifier.c:186)
| cpu_pm_enter (kernel/cpu_pm.c:39 kernel/cpu_pm.c:93)
| psci_enter_idle_state (drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c:52 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c:129)
| cpuidle_enter_state (drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c:238)
| cpuidle_enter (drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c:353)
| do_idle (kernel/sched/idle.c:132 kernel/sched/idle.c:213 kernel/sched/idle.c:273)
| cpu_startup_entry (kernel/sched/idle.c:368 (discriminator 1))
| secondary_start_kernel (arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c:273)

Two points worth noting:

1) That this is conceptually the same issue as pointed out in:
313c8c16ee62 ("PM / CPU: replace raw_notifier with atomic_notifier")
2) Only the _robust() variant of atomic_notifier callchains suffer from
this

AFAICT only the cpu_pm_notifier_chain really needs to be changed, but
singling it out would mean introducing a new (truly) non-blocking API. At
the same time, callers that are fine with any blocking within the call
chain should use blocking notifiers, so patching up all atomic_notifier's
doesn't seem *too* crazy to me.

Fixes: 70d932985757 ("notifier: Fix broken error handling pattern")
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201122201904.30940-1-valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

What do we do with this?
Do we merge this as-is, add another "robust atomic notifier" using only
raw_spinlock_t for registration and notification (for only
cpu_pm_notifier_chain) instead of switching to raw_spinlock_t for all
atomic notifier in -tree?

include/linux/notifier.h | 6 +++---
kernel/notifier.c | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/notifier.h b/include/linux/notifier.h
index 2fb373a5c1ede..723bc2df63882 100644
--- a/include/linux/notifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/notifier.h
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ struct notifier_block {
};

struct atomic_notifier_head {
- spinlock_t lock;
+ raw_spinlock_t lock;
struct notifier_block __rcu *head;
};

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ struct srcu_notifier_head {
};

#define ATOMIC_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) do { \
- spin_lock_init(&(name)->lock); \
+ raw_spin_lock_init(&(name)->lock); \
(name)->head = NULL; \
} while (0)
#define BLOCKING_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(name) do { \
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ extern void srcu_init_notifier_head(struct srcu_notifier_head *nh);
cleanup_srcu_struct(&(name)->srcu);

#define ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { \
- .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \
+ .lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \
.head = NULL }
#define BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_INIT(name) { \
.rwsem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER((name).rwsem), \
diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
index 1b019cbca594a..c20782f076432 100644
--- a/kernel/notifier.c
+++ b/kernel/notifier.c
@@ -142,9 +142,9 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_register(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
unsigned long flags;
int ret;

- spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
ret = notifier_chain_register(&nh->head, n);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(atomic_notifier_chain_register);
@@ -164,9 +164,9 @@ int atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
unsigned long flags;
int ret;

- spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
ret = notifier_chain_unregister(&nh->head, n);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
synchronize_rcu();
return ret;
}
@@ -182,9 +182,9 @@ int atomic_notifier_call_chain_robust(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
* Musn't use RCU; because then the notifier list can
* change between the up and down traversal.
*/
- spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
ret = notifier_call_chain_robust(&nh->head, val_up, val_down, v);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);

return ret;
}
--
2.32.0